Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This has been my impression as well comparing the Canon 8-15 (behind a 140mm dome) with the WWL-1 14-42mm combo. The fisheye is.. sharper and more importantly, has better contrast.
But where the situation get muddy is the conclusion that the distortion is the same between a zoomed fisheye and the WWL-1. I think this is not exactly true. Subjectively at least, they have different renditions. And I would venture a 'feeling' that the WWL-1 has less barrel distortion than the zoomed-in Canon 8-15 at similar fields of view. 
A fisheye renders an image according to an equisolid projection, but interestingly enough, the exact formula differs between different fisheye lenses. So the Lumix 8mm fisheye doesn't distort quite the same way as the Olympus 8mm fisheye or the Canon 8-15...
image.thumb.png.3e711c6aa360b2e8bdff92dd2032f18e.png
 
 
A rectilinear lens renders an image according to a rectilinear projection. And the WWL-1 and presumably the WACP-1/2/C? Probably a different projection function than either the fisheye or rectilinear lenses. The end result is that I don't think you can conclude that the rendering of a fisheye like the 8-15 and nauticam's wet lens range is exactly the same for the same field of view. 
But what is true is that all of these projection functions should be more similar than different at tighter angles of view. It's at wider angles of view that the distortion really differs. Take a look at this graph from the paper linked below. The closer you are to the center of the image, the less pronounced the differences between rectilinear and equisolid angle projection. 
 
image.thumb.png.4d7a1877628f58c9dcf63fc1e2ba30f5.png 
For those technically minded, this paper might be a good starting point: http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Fisheye_history_short/Projections/Models_of_classical_projections.html
Ultimately, what we need is for someone to test the WACP-1/2/C against a fisheye lens like the 8-15 at tighter angles of view. I will do just that using APS-C and m4/3 crop on the R5 C once I get my WACP-1.. or WACP-C.. whichever ships sooner.
But what I will say is that in m4/3 crop, I find that the canon 8-15 even at 15mm still has too much barrel distortion to look natural in video. This was not at all the case with the WWL-1 even at 130*. So no, Massimo.. I don't think the zoom fisheye lenses are a 1:1 substitute for Nauticam's wet optics on APS-C or m4/3 sensors. 

If you use the 8-15mm at 8mm it has a lot of distortion. However for video I use it with the limiter at 10mm and it is very similar to the wwl-1 in fact in my last trip I only used the 8-15mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dreifish said:

This has been my impression as well comparing the Canon 8-15 (behind a 140mm dome) with the WWL-1 14-42mm combo. The fisheye is.. sharper and more importantly, has better contrast.

 

Ultimately, what we need is for someone to test the WACP-1/2/C against a fisheye lens like the 8-15 at tighter angles of view. I will do just that using APS-C and m4/3 crop on the R5 C once I get my WACP-1.. or WACP-C.. whichever ships sooner.

But what I will say is that in m4/3 crop, I find that the canon 8-15 even at 15mm still has too much barrel distortion to look natural in video. This was not at all the case with the WWL-1 even at 130*. So no, Massimo.. I don't think the zoom fisheye lenses are a 1:1 substitute for Nauticam's wet optics on APS-C or m4/3 sensors. 

Interesting statement that the 8-15mm fisheye on MFT is sharper and has better contrast compared to WWL-1 (at same AOV?). Thank you for testing and reviewing. As JYK said rightfully above "I have the feeling, we just have to try out for our own. But who wants to sink that much money into the hobby...". Real and serious reviews are seldom and it is unrealistic and undoable for hobbyists, like us, to buy all the staff, test it and compare. Even when one would have a Lotto Jackpot, nobody has the time to do it and also to store all this hodegpodge...

I am eager to see your comparison of distortion between fisheye, WWL and WAPC at same angle of view...

Regarding fisheye distortion, I have made a lens profile for Canon 8-15mm as I use it UW behind NA140 with MFT (EM1II; probably the Adobe standard profile for this lens would also do it). On my new toy, the Loupedeck CT :crazy: , I have assigned a dial to correct the distortion. In cases, where I do not like fisheye distortion, I correct gradually (usually between 20% - 50%; 100% would be rectilinear). The results look pleasing, I guess similar to WACP-2 optics. I also do not find that IQ suffers from this correction...

=> To me an advantage of fisheye seems that one can always correct the distortion. From 0% (=native fisheye) over partial corrections (as is (likely) the case with WWL's and WACP's), up to completely rectilinear (100%).

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Snapshots from video taken with 8-15mm set with limiter to 10mm colors are off as this is an HDR video1049932954_Screenshot2022-08-20at12_48_53.thumb.png.6bf9cdbaae082aef6ee7266053bd0582.png

780782120_Screenshot2022-08-20at12_46_36.thumb.png.c880d8e681d943021f9bb7801a5635ca.png

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Somehow I feel this thread has gone to a weird place, but maybe that is just me.  I don't fully understand the reason for all the hand-wringing over distortion in ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lenses, especially underwater.  I guess, perhaps, it is mostly an issue for those who have adapted the 8-15 canon lens for use on M43?  Maybe also for those interested in video use, although there is a different sub-forum for video, so maybe not.  Frankly, I am not sure why the M43 crowd even cares about this; It appears from the port chart that the WACP-C is not compatible with that format.

Whether APSC or full frame, there are excellent fixed and zoom fisheye lenses.  Depending on sensor size, these can be used in mini domes and larger domes and are optically great.  Macro lenses are well-represented as well, across the formats at least in most brands.  I don't see the water contact lenses as targeted to replace those lenses.  The 8-15 in a 100 or 140 dome on a DX camera is wonderful.

But non-fisheye wide-angle is problematic in both full frame and DX.  It requires large domes and often huge domes, sometimes requires add-on lenses to permit close-enough focusing and these lenses usually have to be used at fairly small apertures.  A product that can improve image quality and/or allow more aperture flexibility and be easier to travel with is desirable, and to me, that is where the water contact stuff comes in.  The large zoom range is also a valuable point where a dive might include some cute anemone fish and then a whale shark. 

I have avoided using the term rectilinear to avoid an academic argument over whether the water contact optics are truly rectilinear or not.  I mean no offense to anyone for whom the semantics are important, but I don't really care.  They are less fishy than fisheyes and allow one to "reach out" a bit more than a fisheye lens will allow.  That, to me, seems the "point."

In my particular case, if I can get a 170mm diameter, 2.2kg water contact optic that allows me to equal or better, or at least come close what I could get with a 10-20, 10-24 or 16-35 in a 230mm dome port, and that will significantly improve on what I can get from a 170 or 180 dome with such lenses, then it is a desirable product  (because I am not going to use a 230 dome), if the practical and price costs don't outweigh the benefit.  Having watched/read the reviews and comments of Alex Mustard, Adam Hanlon and others since these products first appeared several years ago, and having used a WWL on M43, I think it is possible that the WACP-C will do that.  But it is a guess; I just have to convince myself that it is worth taking a fairly high-dollar gamble that I am right and placing that order, or wait and let someone else evaluate it

I use a crop sensor camera, which complicates research and discussion a bit.  Although an interesting side effect of this is that if the WACP-C is "all that," it could lead me to reconsider a full frame, depending on future DX camera selection.  I have no practical interest in a WACP-2.  I admire the technology, but simply cannot use a 280mm diameter, 7kg optic, regardless of price.  The WACP-1 almost got me, but it proved just a bit too heavy and large for me, and what I have to go through to dive.   The "C", however is doable.

Anyway, I suppose time will tell.  But I have this credit card sitting in front of me, and a shopping cart with a WACP in it and the finger on my mouse keeps twitching....

 

 

Edited by Draq
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Sony full frame mirrorless users I think the WACP-C as a system is a bargain.

For Sony with the FE  28mm F/2 or FE 28-60mm the lens at retail the 28-60 is $498.00 without the kit price. You then need N-100 30mm extension, zoom gear and the WACP-C, total retail price $4475.00. With the FE 28 F/2 $4146.00 This gets you 130 to 69 or 130 degrees of coverage. With a 50mm extension you can use the Sony FE 28-70 and have 130 to 59 degrees of coverage.

The Nauticam 230mm dome cost $2439.00 if you subtract that from the $4475.00 that leaves $2036.00 to buy a wide angle lens, zoom gear and port extension. The WACP-C will have much more coverage, better image quality and can be used at lower F/numbers. I know this because I have used the all of the Sony FE wide lenses except the 16-35mm F/2.8 and they all fall short of wet wide lenses. That also takes into consideration the fact that they were being used with cameras in the 50 to over 60MP range which requires better optics than those needed for M43.

Price will vary depending on your camera brand butI would expect like image quality. 

It you want to see M43 video with a GX-7, 14-42 and prototype WWL-1 checkout Peter Rowlands video on the Nauticam site. Seems every bit as good or better than the Canon 8-14 fisheye on M43 and costs so much less. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Draq said:

Somehow I feel this thread has gone to a weird place, but maybe that is just me.  I don't fully understand the reason for all the hand-wringing over distortion in ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) lenses, especially underwater.  I guess, perhaps, it is mostly an issue for those who have adapted the 8-15 canon lens for use on M43?  Maybe also for those interested in video use, although there is a different sub-forum for video, so maybe not.  Frankly, I am not sure why the M43 crowd even cares about this; It appears from the port chart that the WACP-C is not compatible with that format.

. . . 

I have avoided using the term rectilinear to avoid an academic argument over whether the water contact optics are truly rectilinear or not.  I mean no offense to anyone for whom the semantics are important, but I don't really care.  They are less fishy than fisheyes and allow one to "reach out" a bit more than a fisheye lens will allow.  That, to me, seems the "point."

Hi Draq,

I think Intercepter 121's main point is that the WACP line (and the WWL as well) are not true replacements for rectilinear lenses because they have barrel distortion that turns straight lines curved. Judge for yourself in Alex's wreck pictures. Whenever you put straight lines near the horizontal or vertical edges, they warp:

https://www.amustard.com/library/64/CAY17_am-11438.jpg

https://www.amustard.com/library/64/CAY17_am-10919.jpg

https://www.amustard.com/library/66/CAY17_am-10886.jpg

https://www.amustard.com/library/68/USA18_am-11180.jpg

Are they less fishy than fisheye lenses? Not clear. Intercepter 121 argues that for the same angle of view, they are just as fishy as a zoomed in fisheye lens. I tend to think that actually they have slightly more rectilinear characteristics, but even I am not sure anymore looking at Alex's pictures. I think it bears careful testing.

8 hours ago, Draq said:

But non-fisheye wide-angle is problematic in both full frame and DX.  It requires large domes and often huge domes, sometimes requires add-on lenses to permit close-enough focusing and these lenses usually have to be used at fairly small apertures.  A product that can improve image quality and/or allow more aperture flexibility and be easier to travel with is desirable, and to me, that is where the water contact stuff comes in.  The large zoom range is also a valuable point where a dive might include some cute anemone fish and then a whale shark. 

In my particular case, if I can get a 170mm diameter, 2.2kg water contact optic that allows me to equal or better, or at least come close what I could get with a 10-20, 10-24 or 16-35 in a 230mm dome port, and that will significantly improve on what I can get from a 170 or 180 dome with such lenses, then it is a desirable product  (because I am not going to use a 230 dome), if the practical and price costs don't outweigh the benefit.  Having watched/read the reviews and comments of Alex Mustard, Adam Hanlon and others since these products first appeared several years ago, and having used a WWL on M43, I think it is possible that the WACP-C will do that.  But it is a guess; I just have to convince myself that it is worth taking a fairly high-dollar gamble that I am right and placing that order, or wait and let someone else evaluate it

Now, if you just want the same angle of view as a 16-35 lens or 11-24 lens in a smaller form factor than using a 230mm dome, and don't care about barrel distortion, then Interceptor 121's second argument is that you might as well use a zoom fisheye and 160mm dome if you're on APS-C or m4/3 cameras and you'll get results as good or better than with the WWL/WACP. 

Is the zoom range the same? Not exactly. The Canon 8-15mm fisheye on m4/3 gives you a diagonal angle of view range from 170 degrees (at 8mm) to  84.5 degrees.  The WACP with a 28-70 lens gets you 130-59 degrees on the diagonal. So you get more at the wide end with a fisheye, and less at the tight end.

On APS-C, the Tokina 10-17 gets you 180 degrees - 98 degrees on the diagonal. 

But then again, I don't know that anyone really uses the WACP for the 90 to 60 degree focal length range. That's roughly equivalent with a 24-37mm rectilinear zoom. At that range, you get perfectly fine results with a traditional 16-35 or 24-70 lens behind a 180mm dome port. Which I think is easier to travel with (and probably cheaper) than the WACP. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2022 at 2:04 PM, Phil Rudin said:

 

untitled-02908.jpg

 

untitled-0477.jpg

To me, the WACP photo here looks similar to a crop of the full fisheye photo. Just look at the way the trees bend in the upper corners of the frame. Perhaps just a touch less barrel distortion?

 

untitled-0477.thumb.jpg.569e9d72b0143005078aef582122f108.jpg.1cac7b00b7394fad283b0af9dcb05393.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/19/2022 at 6:55 AM, JYk said:

Just a more critical question, do we really have some testing of these kinds of setup that would be in the same ballpark as Christopher Frost photography for example? What we got most times is a text and a few pictures from a dive, but at this point I don't see any real testing methodologies created for underwater gear. The only thing that came close was the test from Wie Domeports, Vorsatzlinsen und Korrektivports wirken - UWFoto.net (its in german) and even they lacked so many data points that I can't really judge anything from these short articles. 

I have the feeling, we just have to try out for our own. But who wants to sink that much money into the hobby...

I think the article and the tests show a couple of interesting things:

1. The WWL has significant barrel distortion:

wwl1-gesamtbild-f71.png?fit=987,658&ssl=

2. The WACP-1 has the same amount of barrel distortion:

sony-fe-28-60-wacp-f5-6-scaled.jpg?fit=9

3. The WACP-1 produced equivalent results at F5.6 to the WWL at F7.1. That's only a 2/3 stop improvement...

4. Apparently, the WACP-1 was actually wider according to the test. But I wonder if this might not be because the length of the flat port + WWL-1 is different than that of the WACP-1, leading to a different  distance from lens to subject if the tripod wasn't moved. Certainly, seems a bit of an odd outcome otherwise:

vergleich-bildausschnitt-scaled.jpg?fit=

 

 

Edited by dreifish
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a general question. Did Nauticam said what the advantages are when we comparing the WACP-C to the WWL1? From what I see, we got almost the same lens support but need to pay more for a fixed setup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the articles and reviews mentioned or linked in this thread discuss that, but I don't think nauticam has really "compared" the performance of the two in their marketing, which is understandable.

A truly wet lens may be more convenient to use as it is removable underwater.  A combined port/lens like the WACP can offer better correction abilities because it does not have to account for the water connection between the back of the optic and the glass port.

In theory, the WACP offers better split shot capability. 

The WWL is less expensive.

Generally, the consensus among those who have tested both seems to be the WACP in various forms is "better" than the WWL.  How much better and cost vs benefit seems to be disputed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that any of us can compare the performance of the WACP-C yet, except in speculative terms. 

Once they are "in the wild," I'm sure there will be lots of data points that we can use to compare them to the other options.

We have scheduled a Wetpixel Live with the team from Nauticam soon too, so you can rest assured that I will be asking them many of the questions that are posed above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, adamhanlon said:



We have scheduled a Wetpixel Live with the team from Nauticam soon too, so you can rest assured that I will be asking them many of the questions that are posed above.

Looking forward to that episode.  Thanks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I got a WACP-1 and will be testing it in the water next week. The size is definitely daunting. Makes me wish I had waited a few more weeks for the WACP-C to ship. But alas, I have a trip now.. Maybe I'll pick up the WACP-C later as well.

On the bright side, I did still manage to squeeze the Canon R5-C housing, WACP-1, two Retra strobes, and even a 45 degree viewfinder in a rolling carry-on. Minimal viable kit for shooting. The carryon weighs... wait for it... 23 kg.

IMG_0061.thumb.JPG.b2ac0252e421b73cb8402036321024d4.JPG

Edited by dreifish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got a WACP-1 and will be testing it in the water next week. The size is definitely daunting. Makes me wish I had waited a few more weeks for the WACP-C to ship. But alas, I have a trip now.. Maybe I'll pick up the WACP-C later as well.
On the bright side, I did still manage to squeeze the Canon R5-C housing, WACP-1, two Retra strobes, and even a 45 degree viewfinder in a rolling carry-on. Minimal viable kit for shooting. The carryon weighs... wait for it... 23 kg.
IMG_0061.thumb.JPG.b2ac0252e421b73cb8402036321024d4.JPG

Most airlines have an 8kg limit now. However exceptions are made for spare batteries.
I check in everything except camera lenses and spare batteries


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good job-I regularly end up with 25kg in my carry on..the not so subtle art of pretending that my 25kg carry on backpack only weighs 8!

I must confess that I have never tried to carry my WACP as a carry on..yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After very careful consideration I abandoned the idea of a WACP-1, primarily due to air travel considerations.  I often travel on airlines where that bag would stand little chance of getting past the carry-on guards.   Looking at your photo, that appears to be a Thinktank or similar bag.  Knowing those are not really intended to be checked luggage, do you have a contingency plan if they won't let you take it in the cabin?

Just curious...dealing with airline luggage restrictions is one of my constant sources of aggravation in life and I am always looking for ideas.  My basement looks like a luggage store.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Draq said:

After very careful consideration I abandoned the idea of a WACP-1, primarily due to air travel considerations.  I often travel on airlines where that bag would stand little chance of getting past the carry-on guards.   Looking at your photo, that appears to be a Thinktank or similar bag.  Knowing those are not really intended to be checked luggage, do you have a contingency plan if they won't let you take it in the cabin?

Just curious...dealing with airline luggage restrictions is one of my constant sources of aggravation in life and I am always looking for ideas.  My basement looks like a luggage store.

One of the reasons I decided on the WWL-1B over two other options I considered (16-35 with 230mm dome and the WACP-1) is the size/weight. Based on the picture posted by @dreifish, I'm glad I made that choice. There are better options from a purely technical standpoint but they come at the "cost" of size/weight and, as usual, there is no free lunch.

I have all my primary photo equipment in a small-ish Pelican case that I can either carry on (it is overweight but under max size) or check it if I'm lazy or if I am forced to and it is protected from the vagaries of checked luggage. Picture below:

IMG_2494.JPG

- brett

 

Edited by TmxDiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TmxDiver said:

I have all my primary photo equipment in a small-ish Pelican case that I can either carry on (it is overweight but under max size) or check it if I'm lazy or if I am forced to and it is protected from the vagaries of checked luggage. Picture below:

A very nice piece of packing there, Brett. Is that a Pelican 1510?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TMX:

That looks good!  I have gone to having two alternative methods.  If I can get away with it, a carry-on size rolling bag that is suitably protective if checked (a Pelican or similar) along with a shoulder bag or backpack.  For trips in which I am fairly sure I cannot get away with that method, a large Pelican in which I can place everything except camera and camera lenses, batteries and a few other things.

I have basically given up on carry-on bags that are not suitably strong to be checked if forced.  If I relent and get a WACP-C, iw ill likely have to always check gear and will add the WACP to my shoulder bag or backpack.  I am uncomfortable placing any multi-element lenses in luggage and that would include a wacp.

But I am always on the lookout for some superior solution (perhaps one that does not require extra bag fees).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Pelican air 1535, see review but again it is easy to go over weight with hard or soft roller cases. My choice as restrictions have changed over the years has been to put the heavy stuff in my "computer" type shoulder bag. I have a decade old Thinktank that slides over the handle on the roller bag. This is the bag that gets weighed the least and as Adam said you need to make it look light at the checkin.

As you can see I have plenty of room for my Zen Underwater 230mm dome standing on its side. I normally have it in a bubble wrap bag. This leaves me plenty of room for heavy lenses, camera bodies, strobes and more. It also leaves room for the 230mm plus WACP-1 or WACP-C if you need both. My shoulder bag often weights more or equal to my roller bag. My Mac air computer is in the rear of the bag and the front side of the bag is protected by items in the zipper pocket like cords, spare neoprene port cover and more.

 

IMG_2348.JPG

Pelican.jpg

Pelican copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  My shoulder  "airline underseat tote bag" often weighs about 25 lbs, but almost never gets weighed and since it fits under almost any aircraft seat, it does not attract much attention.  I have even put my assembled housing in it a couple times.  I just have to act like it is lightweight.

I also recently added one of those multi-pocket jackets to the options and will likely see in a few weeks if that offers any benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@adamhanlon

Maybe you could ask Nauticam a few questions about the WACP-C when you have your talk?

  1. Is the WACP-C the same optical formular as the WWL1? It seems to be if I took a look at the product pictures.
  2. Are split pictures possible?
  3. What brings the future? Is it possible to create optics that could be on pair with dome ports when it comes to distortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Draq said:

After very careful consideration I abandoned the idea of a WACP-1, primarily due to air travel considerations.  I often travel on airlines where that bag would stand little chance of getting past the carry-on guards.   Looking at your photo, that appears to be a Thinktank or similar bag.  Knowing those are not really intended to be checked luggage, do you have a contingency plan if they won't let you take it in the cabin?

Just curious...dealing with airline luggage restrictions is one of my constant sources of aggravation in life and I am always looking for ideas.  My basement looks like a luggage store.

Less of a concern in the U.S. -- I've yet to have a carry-on weighed by a U.S. airline. Europe is probably a different matter entirely.

The roller bag is similar to a Thinktank, but bought off Taobao for about 1/3 the price :) Has served me well for 5 years now.

My contingency plan if asked to check it in is to point out that it's full of lithium batteries and very expensive camera equipment and wear down the airline staff until they agree it's not worth the effort :D. But in all honesty -- I'm not so worried about it being gate checked. The housing, WACP-1 and retra strobes are all just hunks of solid aluminium. What's going to happen if they get bumped around a bit? At worst, they'll get some surface scuffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, TmxDiver said:

One of the reasons I decided on the WWL-1B over two other options I considered (16-35 with 230mm dome and the WACP-1) is the size/weight. Based on the picture posted by @dreifish, I'm glad I made that choice. There are better options from a purely technical standpoint but they come at the "cost" of size/weight and, as usual, there is no free lunch.

I have all my primary photo equipment in a small-ish Pelican case that I can either carry on (it is overweight but under max size) or check it if I'm lazy or if I am forced to and it is protected from the vagaries of checked luggage. Picture below:

IMG_2494.JPG

- brett

 

What exactly is fragile among this giant pile of aluminium that is going to be protected by a hard case if checked in better than a rigid Thinktank-style roller? Certainly, we've got no hope in hell to get these 'carry-on' bags under 10kg in my view, let alone 7kg. But why are you so worried about it being checked? Have you had equipment damaged in the past?

You can fit a WACP-1 in a soft-sided roller, barely.  Or a soft 'personal item' tote bag or backpack. You definitely can't fit it in a Pelican Air 1535. 

Edited by dreifish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...